A dark day for america. The ones who voted for Bush deserve what they get in the next four years ( and it won't be pretty ). Our economic " recovery " is already starting to sputter. The problem is the rest of us don't deserve this. And before you Bush lovers crow too loud it wasn't a landslide.]

He was right.

dmz:

Quote:

You guys are being VERY sore loosers, it would be better if you didn't post.

For all you lefties out there here is what you should be worried about: Bush was as 'damaged goods' as he could be, what with Farenheit 911, Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, and a partidge in a pear tree casting EVERY dispersion on his methods and intentions that could have POSSIBLY been cast.

What do you think the score would have been had Iraq been going well? Where do you think the country is aligned right-left if you remove the strife surrounding the war on terror and Micheal Moore's mental mastrubation? I'll bet it's not a 51-48 split -- the country is shifting to the right regardless what John Bonjovi and 'The Boss' tells you what to think.

After Clinton they went right back to the 40 year play book. Democrats have no new ideas and refuse to change.

An excellent prediction.

groverat, aka FUCKING NOSTRADAMUS

Quote:

Hillary is unelectable. Do you honestly believe that middle America will vote for a woman? That's even more delusional than people who thought Kerry had a shot at winning.

We will have a black male president before we have a female president, you can bet the house on that. Anyone who has paid even the tiniest bit of attention to America's history with regard to race and gender relations would know that.

midwinter:

Quote:

The democratic party in America is dead. It's either going to limp along like it currently is (waiting for another Clinton) or it's going to get smart and remake itself as a truly centrist party.

It's going to take a long time, though. At least 20 years.

Ah, midwinter, my friend, my friend. Here is a hug.

Here's trumpy.

Quote:

My new prediction is that the Democratic party will remain a minority party for at least a generation. The news and editorials have shown little reflection from that party and have been particularly good at pointing the finger at just about everyone else. A few have possibly been willing to assign blame and even open discussion, but most of it, as even shown in this forum has basically boiled down to, anyone who disagrees with us is stupid, poor, racist, homophobic, idiotic, you name it.

And finally. READ THIS. Here is SDW2001 with a post that explains why the Republican Party are currently fucked, and will remain fucked for as long as Sarah Palin 'enthuses the base', but why they will kick arse in eight years time with someone you have never heard of:

Quote:

Shawn,

I consider you to be an intelligent person, and a thoughtful one. However, I cannot understand why both you and others on the left refuse, absolutely REFUSE to see the problems in the Democratic Party.

Let me elaborate: One could argue that the worst form of failure involves denying the failure exists at all. This was what happened in 2000 and 2002 with the Democratic party. They said that they just didn't get their message out, blamed 9/11, Bush's popularity, etc. Fortunately, the Democratic party has now moved on to the next worst form of failure: Realizing there is a problem but not being able to figure out what it is.

For the Democratic party to succeed, it MUST admit that it has left its constituients, not vice versa. I read a lot of opinions on the subject of the last few elections and their meaning for the Dems, and most of them that are written by liberals tend to blame the most recent loss on message making, the candidate, the Republican political machine, the religious right, vote counting conspiracy, and of course the tried and true tactic of claiming racial discrimination and gender discrimination.

None of these touch the real issue: The party does not stand for what the majority of Americans want it to stand for. That's the ballgame. Oh sure, political attitudes change. Yes, the Republicans did a great job of turnout and had the advantage of incumbency and war. Yeah...Kerry was a weak candidate. But it's all incidental. It's the party itself that is the problem. It's no longer a national force, and it's important to understand why so the problem can be fixed. Yes, I would like to see a strong Democratic party, but as I've said, it's not going to happen until the party completely remakes itself.

So please, enough with the charges of voter intimidation (do you really believe it happens...can you prove it?), vote counts being wrong, the south and bible belt being backward, the country being "fucked up" as I believe you said on election night. Please realize that trumptman is 100% correct: People that used to be Democrats because they HAD to be are leaving the party becuase it no longer represents them. It's not the people that need to change, it's the party that lost the election. That's how representative Democracy works.

It's not for the elected leaders to "make their message" better (i.e. push it down the electorate's throat). The Dems need REAL and LASTING change...change that fits the will of the majority of the people of the country*

I still stand by my statement 100%. I don't see America as having gone liberal.

This is really about the media who are going broke (not just the newspapers) while having abandoned the reporting of news.

Every statement I made then is true now. In fact we can add to it the major media urban centers have given up on the news and get their information from the cartoonish Daily Show, Colbert Report and SNL.

The Republicans are questioning themselves and they shouldn't. Democratic gains are based off -isms, pure criticism with no true plan, and no action on previous promises. Republicans had a few corrupt members. The Democrats do as well but the media won't even say the name Democrat when reporting on them.

One thing Republicans definately have to stop doing is letting others persecute them with their own morals when those undertaking the persecution don't have those morals. Anyone still waiting for Tom Delay to go to jail for all the false charges filed against him? Anyone still wondering why Newt had to give back his book advance while Clinton grabbed hers and ran?

How's your wife? Compared to what. That is what America is asking right now. Soon they will know that Bush with a Republican Congress spent a hell of a lot less than Obama or Bush with a Democratic Congress.

Let's see how true this thread is in 2010 when Americans are wondering why a guy who can't figure out their own taxes is in charge of their taxes, when the media runs out of material because they run the same tired BushHATE routine and there is no one to hang it on and when everyone has realized you can't borrow and spend your way to prosperity to the tune of a trillion dollars a year. The bubble may briefly inflate but bubble economics is not the way to run the country and Republican or Democrat, but mostly boomer, the pain will come to bear soon no matter who is in office.

My new prediction is that the Democratic party will remain a minority party for at least a generation.

This is indeed all the fault of the media. The Republican Party should not bother examining itself, or asking itself if it isn't putting ideology before the desires and fears of the electorate. This is entirely the media's fault and Sarah Palin most certainly is the future.

Can't recall when, but after 2002, I had gotten some idea that Bush and Co. was going to send us down the river (Euphrates or Tigris river, take your pick) into Iraq. There was even the mumblings of 9|11 being an inside job. I started to feel instinctively the same way with other administrations (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and even Clinton...take your pick) that we were getting bamboozled.

I was drinking the kool-aid like everyone after 9|11, but I had the sense that I've seen this method of lies and false flags before.

Only one news agency was reporting the apprehensions of entering into Iraq, but it wasn't enough to change America's path.

It didn't seem that anyone (except sammi jo) wanted to hear about it.

But it all came to a head when I called Fellowship "weird" and I was banned (!). I didn't mean it, and I'm sure Fellows forgave me. But that ended the PO forums for me back then. Ironic now, to say the least...

None of us should rely on Krystol Balls or other forms of media today either. We were misrepresented by them then and we are now.

So I'm not going to pull any rabbits out of the PO hat's past. We all make mistakes.

But it'll be fun to see how some will rationalize or defend themselves too.

This is indeed all the fault of the media. The Republican Party should not bother examining itself, or asking itself if it isn't putting ideology before the desires and fears of the electorate. This is entirely the media's fault and Sarah Palin most certainly is the future.

I consider you to be an intelligent person, and a thoughtful one. However, I cannot understand why both you and others on the left refuse, absolutely REFUSE to see the problems in the Democratic Party.

Let me elaborate: One could argue that the worst form of failure involves denying the failure exists at all. This was what happened in 2000 and 2002 with the Democratic party. They said that they just didn't get their message out, blamed 9/11, Bush's popularity, etc. Fortunately, the Democratic party has now moved on to the next worst form of failure: Realizing there is a problem but not being able to figure out what it is.

For the Democratic party to succeed, it MUST admit that it has left its constituients, not vice versa. I read a lot of opinions on the subject of the last few elections and their meaning for the Dems, and most of them that are written by liberals tend to blame the most recent loss on message making, the candidate, the Republican political machine, the religious right, vote counting conspiracy, and of course the tried and true tactic of claiming racial discrimination and gender discrimination.

None of these touch the real issue: The party does not stand for what the majority of Americans want it to stand for. That's the ballgame. Oh sure, political attitudes change. Yes, the Republicans did a great job of turnout and had the advantage of incumbency and war. Yeah...Kerry was a weak candidate. But it's all incidental. It's the party itself that is the problem. It's no longer a national force, and it's important to understand why so the problem can be fixed. Yes, I would like to see a strong Democratic party, but as I've said, it's not going to happen until the party completely remakes itself.

So please, enough with the charges of voter intimidation (do you really believe it happens...can you prove it?), vote counts being wrong, the south and bible belt being backward, the country being "fucked up" as I believe you said on election night. Please realize that trumptman is 100% correct: People that used to be Democrats because they HAD to be are leaving the party becuase it no longer represents them. It's not the people that need to change, it's the party that lost the election. That's how representative Democracy works.

It's not for the elected leaders to "make their message" better (i.e. push it down the electorate's throat). The Dems need REAL and LASTING change...change that fits the will of the majority of the people of the country*

This is indeed all the fault of the media. The Republican Party should not bother examining itself, or asking itself if it isn't putting ideology before the desires and fears of the electorate. This is entirely the media's fault and Sarah Palin most certainly is the future.

I can't repeat that line enough, incidentally.

The very, very best of luck with that, trumptman.

Well a few points of clarification. First, I have said that Bush was not truly conservative and I said it in here while everyone was declaring him the most conservative guy ever while bleeding the economy for $250 billion a year. I think you should start a thread whereby they are shown statements where they pronounced how conservative he is and then follow them with the Bush Bailout and him declaring he had chucked free market principles so they can shown proper irony as well.

I haven't said that the Republican party doesn't have to re-examine what it is doing. I have said that many of them have abandoned their principles and become RINO's or Democrat-lite. I've repeatedly said that the Neo-Cons band together with the Democrats and paint paleo-con ideology as racist, etc.

The result is RINO's arguing that they are fiscally conservative for ONLY wanting to spend $700 billion on a bailout whereas Democrats want to spend $850 billion. The people questioning whether there should be a bailout, they don't get any media play, gain any ground and when they are given attention it is for -ism attacks.

You had the urban areas overcome the surburban and rural areas (though surburban went slightly Obama as well.) Everyone wants to go back to the lie that we are post-industrial/everything.

Quote:

Experts proclaimed that the United States had evolved into an "information society" of "high-tech jobs." The traditional sources of American strength -- manufacturing, the production of food and fuel, and the assembling of cars and trucks -- were apparently passé. Instead, others less fortunate abroad were to do those more grubby tasks, while Americans, with their BlackBerrys and laptops, funded, organized, lectured and critiqued them.

Illegal aliens might cook our meals or change our children's diapers to free us up for far more important tasks of litigation, finance and environmental review. The Chinese would make everything from our shoes to our phones. The Japanese would supply us with quality high-end goods like cars and cameras. The Africans, Arabs, Iranians, Russians and Venezuelans would drill oil in nasty, dirty places so we wouldn't have to.

Even our food -- which would be always in season -- would increasingly be shipped in from Mexico and South America.

Refined Americans became more concerned over questions of gender, race and class justice in our universities and courtrooms, as if the chief problem were only dividing the American pie equitably, rather than expanding it.

The real source of American wealth apparently was the mere fact that we were Americans. Therefore, the rest of the world should naturally loan us money to sustain our envied lifestyle. Our homes got bigger, and we bought and sold them more as investments than as places to raise our families.

Our top graduates opted for Wall Street, insurance, law, journalism and academia. Why not, when laws made it more conducive to invest and trade, but harder and less lucrative to build, drill, farm and manufacture?

No amount of printing, debt financing, recapitalizing, quantitative easing, etc. can change the fact that we aren't post anything and need to stop trying to outsource while somehow controlling the creation of wealth. Using leverage to multiply the return won't change that fact, letting the fed buy everything in sight won't change that fact either.

This is partially why I have, over time, started to say this is more than a party issue. It is a generation issue. When is some boomer journalist going to stand up and ask boomer Obama how many trillions of debt he is going to tack on to his lovely daughter's futures? It is the blind spot. It isn't just liberal though it leans that way. It is also generational and I have said that as well.

I don't think blaming boomers is the Republican talking point du jour, even if some folks who don't want to do anything thinking dismiss it as such. There is a power populism out there and a lot of folks who are not post-anythign who want a voice. They do not want those tapping their blackberries to keep destroying wealth while telling them how to do their jobs. Occasionally it crystalizes very strongly like the nerve Joe the Plumber hit during the campaign. What he represents isn't gone even if McCain didn't manage to tap into it that well.

The California example of this is that we are broke as hell and import almost all our power from out of state (much like the U.S. does oil) so that we can be "clean." We let those "dirty" states like Texas, Kansas, etc. make out electricity for us but then complain they are ripping us off while not generating it the way we would which is what drove the generation out of state in the first place.

It isn't economically sustainable. We can hide it or borrow it away for a while but the truth is the truth. Soon we will have to get our hands dirty again or go broke denying it.

Well a few points of clarification. First, I have said that Bush was not truly conservative and I said it in here while everyone was declaring him the most conservative guy ever while bleeding the economy for $250 billion a year. I think you should start a thread whereby they are shown statements where they pronounced how conservative he is and then follow them with the Bush Bailout and him declaring he had chucked free market principles so they can shown proper irony as well.

snip

I haven't said that the Republican party doesn't have to re-examine what it is doing. I have said that many of them have abandoned their principles and become RINO's or Democrat-lite. I've repation out of state in the first place.

It isn't economically sustainable. We can hide it or borrow it away for a while but the truth is the truth. Soon we will have to get our hands dirty again or go broke denying it.

I can only encourage you to keep thinking like this. The Republican Party must, I agree, move more to the right in order to capture the popular mood. The American electorate is sick of RINOs, like George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and wants a Sarah Palin, who can tap into the discontent that Joe the Plumber came to represent.

-Artman, I love ya bro and I don't recall what exactly happened years back but I want you to know I am sorry it ever happened. Please forgive me and know I love ya!

Hassan, I am sure you recall my transformation politically. Bush blew it big time starting with the war in Iraq.

Trumpt. This is not about the media. "The media" is always an excuse given when a republican in name looses. This is about the republicans being republican in name only but in reality spenders during the Bush years that make a republican of the Clinton years blush. The country tired of a party which focused on the war in Iraq and forgot the roots of fiscal responsibility. The republican party became the party of "BIG Government" foreign policy. What ever happened to the republican party of the Clinton years that focused on fiscal responsibility?

Bush and his speech Thursday evening,

Wow was that a boring "going through the motions" put you to sleep excuse of a dismal speech or what.

The man knows he is not popular. That much is true.

It is my hope that going forward more of us decide to hold our elected officials accountable as opposed to cheering them on while listening to what ever brand / flavor of talk radio we have an appetite for.

Talk radio be it Limbaugh on the right or Maddow on the left is pointless if nobody holds their leaders accountable.

Spin machines do nothing to help the cause of sorting out the times when we need to take difference with the actions of our leaders no matter which team we think we are for.

Now in case I have not had a chance to tell one of you all yet.

Happy New Year!

Go and be prosperous and live in peace!

Share and reason with one another!

but above all,,

Love and be loved.

Your friendly Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Finally! A book that proves the existence of an alternate universe. Obviously, a rip in the space/time continuum between this universe and the other universe where Bush is presiding over a 'boom economy opened up and this book fell through. Can there be ANY other explanation?

So, OK, so the post-Bush plan for the Republicans is to despise and resent anyone over 40, as well as the seemingly endless list of everybody else that they despise and resent?

So then the Republican party base can be people under 40 living in the south or some of the plains states and Alaska who have a high school diploma and are not professionals and are white and not gay and who love Jesus? So it's Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder and Sarah Palin, pretty much, against everybody else?

That sounds awesome. That's a Republican Party I can totally get behind.

Blame your parents. Perfect.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I still stand by my statement 100%. I don't see America as having gone liberal.

This is really about the media who are going broke (not just the newspapers) while having abandoned the reporting of news.

Every statement I made then is true now. In fact we can add to it the major media urban centers have given up on the news and get their information from the cartoonish Daily Show, Colbert Report and SNL.

The Republicans are questioning themselves and they shouldn't. Democratic gains are based off -isms, pure criticism with no true plan, and no action on previous promises. Republicans had a few corrupt members. The Democrats do as well but the media won't even say the name Democrat when reporting on them.

One thing Republicans definately have to stop doing is letting others persecute them with their own morals when those undertaking the persecution don't have those morals. Anyone still waiting for Tom Delay to go to jail for all the false charges filed against him? Anyone still wondering why Newt had to give back his book advance while Clinton grabbed hers and ran?

How's your wife? Compared to what. That is what America is asking right now. Soon they will know that Bush with a Republican Congress spent a hell of a lot less than Obama or Bush with a Democratic Congress.

Let's see how true this thread is in 2010 when Americans are wondering why a guy who can't figure out their own taxes is in charge of their taxes, when the media runs out of material because they run the same tired BushHATE routine and there is no one to hang it on and when everyone has realized you can't borrow and spend your way to prosperity to the tune of a trillion dollars a year. The bubble may briefly inflate but bubble economics is not the way to run the country and Republican or Democrat, but mostly boomer, the pain will come to bear soon no matter who is in office.

Quote:

I still stand by my statement 100%

Of course you do!

Quote:

Let's see how true this thread is in 2010 when Americans are wondering why a guy who can't figure out their own taxes is in charge of their taxes

Quote:

but mostly boomer

Can you say clutching at straws?

Quote:

the same tired BushHATE routine

We were tired of it along time ago also. Unfortunately he was still president and we'll be living with the consequences of his mismanegement for awhile now.

And Hassan I applaud you for pulling this out of the past! I've been waiting for this for a long time and it's great it's there in black and white.

There's not much the Bush supporters here can say about it with much validity except " We're sorry! We were wrong! " which they're of course not going to do.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I can only encourage you to keep thinking like this. The Republican Party must, I agree, move more to the right in order to capture the popular mood. The American electorate is sick of RINOs, like George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and wants a Sarah Palin, who can tap into the discontent that Joe the Plumber came to represent.

Don't give up. You have a blog, Nick. Use your voice.

Really. With guys like this on their team it'll be alot longer than 8 years before they see the inside of the Whitehouse!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

1. Doofimizm used only by fully edgymicated presidents when their teleprompters are busted or they are feeling kinda smart or when they wants to show all them handlers at the white house just who's really in charge around here.

I must have misunderestimated all them nuculer bombs and them weapons of mass disappearance in that there eye rack.

Heck, Bush used this exact same word again just a day or so ago.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Do you know what the real irony is here? This wasn't really difficult to work out!

All you had to do was pay attention to what has been going on with the republican party since the 80's and then look at Dubbya's record.

Anyone with a brain could work it out ( well that and an open mind ). The Neocons had wanted a venue to further their agendas ( someone pliable ) for some time and with Clinton's massive debacle they saw an open road.

What they didn't realize is that he'd screw them over as well.

Now if you look back into his past and see how he handled his oil companies ( which ended with them going nose first into the ground ) you can see how he operates in a business sense.

Put this togther with a history of shield beating type warmongering and who he chose as a running mate and then shake well!

When he ran I knew he would beat Gore somehow. I also knew we were in for some of the worst times on record. But one thing I did miss and that was how bad it could get. I didn't think he'd get a second term but I underestimated the power of the rightwing propaganda machine ( of course they got a little boost from 911 ).

Well I do have hope for the future but it'll take awhile to turn things around.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

The 2001 Budget, which I am submitting to you with this message, is the fourth balanced budget of my Administration. This budget upholds my policy of fiscal discipline and promises new opportunity for our Nation. We have made great progress in the last seven years, rejecting the fiscal disarray of an earlier era and in its place, asserting a steadfast commitment to live within our means, balance the budget, and uphold fiscal discipline. As a result, we have created the conditions for unprecedented prosperity. The longest peacetime economic expansion in American history has produced more than 20 million new jobs.

Our success in reversing what once seemed to be uncontrollable growth in the Federal budget deficit has created more than prosperity. We have restored to America a spirit of purpose and confidence.

This budget responds to the pressing needs of today and builds an America of the future by making our Nation debt free by 2013.

This budget uses the same straightforward approach of relying on conservative assumptions, as have all the budgets of my Administration. This conservative approach has built confidence in our budgets, because when unforeseen results have materialized, an inevitable development in forecasting, they have always brought good news. In turn, reversing recent trends, my 2001 Budget builds on the tradition of straightforward budgets to meet the pressing needs of today in a balanced plan that adheres to the principles of fiscal discipline and debt reduction. This budget also maintains a strict set of budget rules upholding our long commitment to fiscal discipline, which has sustained the conditions for our economy to flourish.

The 2001 Budget continues to project that the Federal budget will remain in surplus for many decades to come, provided that a responsible fiscal policy holds course, to foster sustained economic growth. Our challenge now, in this era of surplus, is to make balanced choices to use our resources to meet the pressing needs of today, and the needs of generations to come.

When I took office in 1993, the current strength of our economy seemed beyond possibility. At that point, both the Federal budget deficit and the national debt had exploded, threatening our economic future. The costs of massive Federal borrowing drove interest rates up, incomes were stagnant for all but the most well off, and the economy had barely grown during the prior four years. The Nation needed a new course, and we worked hard to secure the passage of legislation, with the support of Democrats in Congress, to get the economy moving again.

We have started to pay down the national debt and are on a path to make the Nation debt free by 2013 for the first time since 1835.

WILLIAM J. CLINTONFebruary 7, 2000

Quote:

They misunderestimated me.

GEORGE W. BUSH
November 6, 2000

Quote:

This new approach is also responsible:

It will retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time. It achieves the maximum amount of debt reduction possible without payment of wasteful premiums. It will reduce the indebtedness of the United States, relative to our national income, to the lowest level since early in the 20th Century and to the lowest level of any of the largest industrial economies.

New threats to our national security are proliferating. They demand a rethinking of our defense priorities, our force structure, and our military technology.

It is not hard to see the difficulties that may lie ahead if we fail to act promptly. The economic outlook is uncertain. Unemployment is rising, and consumer confidence is falling. Excessive taxation is corroding our prosperity. Government spending has risen too quickly, while essential reforms, especially for our schools, have been neglected.

This budget also retires the maximum amount of debt possible by providing the fastest, largest debt reduction in history, $2 trillion over 10 years. Debt held by the public will be reduced to its lowest share of the economy since World War I.

GEORGE W. BUSH
April 9, 2001

Quote:

The plan also calls for maintaining low tax rates, freer trade, restraint in government spending, regulatory and tort reform, promoting a sound energy policy, and funding key priorities in education, health, and compassionate social programs.

George W. Bush
February 4, 2002

Quote:

Compared to the overall federal budget and the $10.5 trillion national economy, our budget gap is small by historical standards.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 3, 2003

Quote:

With this spending restraint and continued pro-growth economic policies, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 2, 2004

Quote:

I look forward to working closely with the Congress to achieve these reductions and reforms. By doing so, we will remain on track to meet our goal to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 7, 2005

Quote:

To stay on track to meet my goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, we must maintain our pro-growth policies and insist on spending restraint.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 6, 2006

Quote:

The Budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012.

With continued strong economic growth and spending discipline, we are now positioned to balance the budget by 2012, while providing for our national security and making tax relief permanent.

This Budget reflects our highest priorities while reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget by 2012. I am confident that this approach will help make our country more secure and more prosperous.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 5, 2007

Quote:

Thanks to the hard work of the American people and spending discipline in Washington, we are now on a path to balance the budget by 2012.

With pro-growth policies and spending discipline, we will balance the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national security.

GEORGE W. BUSH
February 4, 2008

Quote:

Sometimes you, umm, misunderestimated me.

GEORGE W. BUSH
January 12, 2009

Quote:

What the fuck?

Barack H. Obama
February 29, 2009

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Too bad Gore didn't win. He probably would have followed his former coworker's policies and not got involved in Iraq. Would have handled 911 totally different ( possibly captured OSBL ) and not spent money like it was water. Probably would have been a lot greener and we wouldn't have been in the mess we are.

By design or not I do think the terrorists got exactly what they wanted for us. And they didn't have to send any envelopes filled with anthrax or send any WMD. We had a our own WMD right here in the Whitehouse.

These 2 recessions might have still happened but as I've said before it's all in your approach. Now I know the right will say " You have no way of knowing that ". But I do know anyone qualified for the position would have done better. We do know he probably would have followed Clinton's policies which wouldn't have gotten us here.

This guy was the wrong direction to take at that cross road.

Ah well too bad. But I hope that for many years to come people will rememeber the Bush legacy. How can they help? As Bush Sr. said to Jeb recently : " It's probably not a good time to run ".

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

We don't know that. They didn't finish counting the votes in Florida. Nobody knows who won 2000. There was no 2000 election. It was a presidential appointment.... our votes stood for nothing

Quote:

He probably would have followed his former coworker's policies and not got involved in Iraq.

The Iraq war would not have happened if President Gore....

Quote:

Would have handled 911 totally different ( possibly captured OSBL ) and not spent money like it was water.

And Cheney would not have been there to alter the FAA/NORAD/USAF scramble procedures a couple of months before 9/11 (requiring personal Sec. Defense authorization for intercepts and challenges), thus giving those in control of the airplanes the window of opportunity to reach their targets. The original, pre-9/11 scramble protocol was reinstated 9/12/2001. Yes, under Gore, 9/11 would either have not happened at all, or there would have had a different, happier outcome.... without the slightest shadow of doubt. And without 9/11, we would not have had the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the anthrax attacks, the department of homeland security, the Patriot Act, the TSA, extraordinary renditions, First Amendment zones, the trashing of the Bill of Rights, the loss of checks and balances, soaring government secrecy and paranoia, warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, $1 trillion wasted on wars of choice, a massive federal deficit.... the list goes on and on (tincan dictator stuff)...... and the rest of the world would have a damned sight more respect for us......

And yes, OBL would probably now be in jail, found guilty for his part in the attacks on the USS Cole and the US Embassies in Africa.

Quote:

Probably would have been a lot greener and we wouldn't have been in the mess we are.

Yes, but Americans don't like tree-hugger hippie technology. We like gasoline and big, rumbling V8s.

Quote:

By design or not I do think the terrorists got exactly what they wanted for us

.

Yes, they certainly did, and they are still chewing on it... Nothing. is. going. to. Change®.

Quote:

And they didn't have to send any envelopes filled with anthrax or send any WMD.

"They" didn't have to? Don't you mean "Muslims had nothing to do with the Anthrax attack, except (a) get framed by the perpetrators re. the letters in the envelopes, and (b) get blamed in the corporate media, without any evidence? Again? As usual?

Quote:

We had our own WMD right here in the Whitehouse.

Yes, and what's new there? Come January 20, we'll have a different batch.

Quote:

These 2 recessions might have still happened but as I've said before it's all in your approach. Now I know the right will say " You have no way of knowing that ". But I do know anyone qualified for the position would have done better. We do know he probably would have followed Clinton's policies which wouldn't have gotten us here.

A dry alcoholic, with little knowledge of the real world outside of Texas and Kennebunkport, is not the best choice for the world's most powerful CEO with the heaviest responsibilities. The 8 year debacle wasn't really Bush's fault; he was just the wrong man in the wrong job. Cheney was really the one in charge, and there is how the problems really got started.

Quote:

Ah well too bad. But I hope that for many years to come people will rememeber the Bush legacy. How can they help? As Bush Sr. said to Jeb recently : " It's probably not a good time to run ".

July 4th, 2009.........

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Gore seems like a much more reasonable individual that wouldn't have looked at the bad evidence at face value. After all the UN was advising military action wasn't necessary at that point. The Bush administration and only the Bush administration was the one who pushed this through.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

If you can search back eight years you might find my prediction that electing Bush would lead to an overwhelming mallaise in the country, feelings of despair and a mood of darkness, and, economic woes where divisiveness and misery are the norm.

I remember at the time Fellows thought I was an idiot . . . he later grew up, politically speaking.

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.